Blame not the victim
I had a lunchtime conversation today that degenerated into an argument about people living in poverty, specifically as it relates to food choices. It didn’t start that way, and talking through cultural understandings and expectations meant that likely we were not to end up on the same page regardless. It wasn’t a heated conversation; no nasty words were shared, and the two of us ended up walking away from the table laughing about something else altogether. But it was the type of thing that gets stuck in my craw for the rest of the day.
Rather than continuing to talk in abstract, I’m working on a fairly reasonable example of Person Doe, a single parent working two jobs for a total of 60 hours a week at minimum wage, raising their 12-year-old child in Chicago. Person Doe is the subject of this blog post from here on out.
Person Doe works two minimum wage jobs, 30 hours per week each. Chicago’s minimum wage is $8.25 per hour, $1 higher than the U.S. federal minimum wage. Person Doe grosses $495 weekly, $2,145 monthly, or $25,740 annually. Assuming federal witholding of 15%, state witholding of 3%, Social Security witholding of 6.2% and Medicare witholding of 1.45%, Person Doe takes home $368.03 weekly, $1,594.81 monthly, or $19,137.69 annually in net pay.
The 2009-10 Federal Poverty Guidelines as determined by the Department of Health and Human Services for Person Doe’s two-person family are $14,570. Therefore, Person Doe is earning just a hair over 175% of the poverty guidelines. This can be seen as both good and bad.
The average monthly rent for a two bedroom apartment in Chicago, according to one rental service in the city, was $1,842 in June of this year. A one bedroom didn’t fare much better, at $1,192, but we’ll assume that Person Doe has opted for the one bedroom unit. According to the US Census Bureau, more than 19% of Chicago residents spend more than 50% of their monthly income on housing alone; those who spend 30% or more of their monthly income on housing represent 37.9% of the entire city population. (The general, accepted rule is that one should spend no more than 30% of their monthly income on housing.) For the sake of argument, we’ll also assume that Person Doe has found one of the rare city apartments with all necessary utilities (heat, water, electric, cooking gas, trash/recycling) included, and that they do not subscribe to either pay TV or Internet services.
After housing costs are removed, Person Doe has $402.81 remaining for the month.
For transportation to and from work, Person Doe uses the CTA and a monthly system pass, costing $86. For Junior Doe, a $5 annual school riding permit for CTA is purchased. Subtracting those from the monthly cost leaves Person Doe with $316.38 remaining.
Person Doe and Junior, in spite of their urban living and suggestions for personal safety, opt only to have a basic landline telephone rather than cell phones. This service from local phone company AT&T costs $10 monthly; there is now $306.38 remaining for the month.
The biggest necessity that has been unfulfilled has been food. Because Person Doe’s income is between 130 and 185% of the poverty guidelines, Junior qualifies for the reduced-price school lunch — a cost of $.40 each school day, or $8 in a four-week month.
But of course, people say, this situation must qualify for SNAP — the program formerly known as food stamps. Not so. Even though after all these other necessary expenses are deducted, in an example that is both very real and one in which people find themselves every day — because Person Doe grosses more than the allowed $1,579 for a household of two, no additional social programs are available to them. Person Doe, working 60 hours a week at two jobs at the minimum wage in Chicago, utilizing public transportation services, living a no-frills lifestyle, taking care of a 12-year-old child, is not eligible for SNAP benefits or other social service programs provided by the State of Illinois because their monthly income is too high.
The system is miserably, unbelievably broken. People who are working, who are attempting to pull their own weight, have to make the decision between simply existing and eating. (This example leaves out the entire question of health insurance altogether, mind you.) Person Doe is working. Person Doe is not simply sitting on the sidelines, watching this orchestrated injustice play out around them. Yet Person Doe is left with just $298.38 to make the rest of ends meet: purchasing school supplies for Junior, clothing for the two of them, and their basic food needs. Nevermind if one of them gets sick and they need to purchase simple, over-the-counter remedies. Nevermind if something breaks that needs to be fixed. Nevermind the need to keep a clean house, do laundry, or any of the myriad “hidden” costs in a household budget. Nevermind the entire opportunity to save money for a rainy day. To put food on the table and make all other things work, Person Doe has less than $300 to make it happen.
The average grocery bill for a family of two? $367, according to the Illinois Department of Human Services. That means Person Doe is officially $68.82 in the red.
To those outside the United States, and those inside the country who are puzzled by regular eating habits: this is the reason why so many Americans reach for the 10 for $10 processed TV dinners canned meals. This is the reason why $1 double cheeseburgers and $1 large Cokes at McDonald’s are a staple dietary item for so many people. When it comes down to it, there’s a reason junk food is called “filler,” and why the regular processed diet will prevail over organic convenience foods that cost even $1 more.
To those conservatives in the United States (and elsewhere) who believe the economic markets must be followed, or for those who still chalk this situation up to “personal choices” or “personal responsibility,” I ask a simple question: what do you say to Person Doe? What suggestions do you have for them? Or are you so ensconced behind your veil of privilege you refuse even to acknowledge the possibility that not only does Person Doe exist, but there are hundreds of thousands — millions, even — of Persons Doe who are victims of your own ignorance?
Related Posts
Tags
Share This
Daniel Ross-Jones serves as Minister for Youth & Young Adults at First Congregational Church of Palo Alto, United Church of Christ. Living in the San Francisco Bay Area for a time still measured in months, he is frequently getting lost and discovering treasures of a landscape very different from his Upper Midwestern roots. Green Jello Hotdish is a blog exploring the intersections of his days. 
Wow, Daniel. Good and true example,and youre scaring me. Sure would have thought the person would be eligible for food stamps, and dont overlook the fact this person is working 60 hours a week. Its not like theres a lot of extra time.
I think the same thing about health care, altho you left that out of this example. My son works full time plus — 50-55 hours a week at a job, yet does not get any health coverage at all. Since he makes about $10 an hour, i bug him to get at least catastrophic coverage because even though he doesnt have a license or a car, someone in a car could easily hit him walking in downtown Savannah. But he says at $60/month its too much in his budget and doesnt do it. Sigh.
Things have gotta change. and yet you hear “rand Paul-ers” and “ayn Rand” followers saying capitalism should be all laissez-faire, that “charity” such as food stamps or a lesser rate just poison people from working hard. Which is BS in my book. People on the edge work HARD, they just dont get AHEAD.
which worries me because now thats me…………..
I actually was surprised that the example didn’t qualify for any social services, myself. It’s a little different in IL than WI. The example in WI would possibly qualify for Badger Care, but does not qualify for any health cover in IL. I’m one of the uninsured folks at the moment (though will have coverage once school starts again next month). I had the catastrophic coverage, but when I did the sums it didn’t add up at all. I was paying nearly $200 a month for a plan with a $200 deductible and then $10,000 out-of-pocket cap for coinsurance (80/20). I was keeping it because “if I got hit by a bus…” But I don’t have $10,200. I’d have to go bankrupt for that. Likewise, if I’m hit by a bus and don’t have coverage and end up with a $60,000 bill, I’d have to go bankrupt. The outcome is the same. I opted to pocket the $200 and take my chances. (In a strange twist of events, I’m covered while I’m here in NZ, under my travel insurance and the national accident health plan here. But I best not get hurt or sick once I get over the U.S. mainland. For that I pay.)